Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project6 Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project Report Chart 1. Primary reasons for misalignment Misaligned segment mileage by implementation
Post on 20-Feb-2020
22 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Minnesota JurisdictionalRealignment Project
Final Report
July 2014
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1
Executive SummaryIntroduction
This document presents the final report of the Minnesota jurisdictional realignment project, divided intoan executive summary and a detailed report.
The overall objective for this project was to ensurethat Minnesota roads are owned and operated at theright jurisdictional level. This project developed andapplied a methodology to identify roadway segmentsthat are not owned by the right level of government(referred to as misaligned). This project also providesadditional information that can be used as a basisfrom which a jurisdictional transfer process andprogram can be established to remedy themisalignments.
To accomplish these objectives, the projectestablished a standard and consistent approach which can be used to identify segments that differentjurisdictional interests in Minnesota—the state, counties, cities, and townships—agree are “misaligned.”The project then applied this approach to build a misalignment register.
It has long been recognized in Minnesota that the jurisdictional responsibilities for roadways need to bereassessed to ensure their efficient and effective management. The issue and discussion of jurisdictionalalignment has been ongoing. The topic became a highly focused issue in the 1980s and has beenrevisited since then. A total of seven studies were conducted between 1983 and 1998 on the subject,and all studies acknowledged misalignments in the state and agreed that it was necessary to ensure thatthe “right roads are at the right level” of government.
The key issues with misaligned roads as identified in prior studies and through this study are as follows:
Misaligned roads may not provide appropriate level of service for users in terms of both capacityand customer expectations, such as safety, ride quality and maintenance
Misaligned roads may use the wrong source of funding, which may not contain required fundsfor improvements. This may result in a lower service level than if the road was properlyaligned/owned by the appropriate jurisdiction
Misaligned roads may lead to an “impaired” network of roads due to differing jurisdictionpriorities (that is, the road conditions may change significantly while traveling and may not meettraveler’s expectations)
Misaligned roads may not receive the priority for funding or improvements, and as a result,misaligned roads that are widely used may be underserved while others may be over-served
Looking forward, a guiding principle inMinnesota’s 50-year vision is to
“strategically fix the system,” whichincludes reviewing parts of the system
that may need to be reduced whileother parts that may need to beenhanced or expanded to meet
changing demand - ensuring thatroads are aligned with the proper
jurisdictional owner.
2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
This study goes beyond the scope of prior studies, inthat this project identifies specific segments that aremisaligned and considered candidates for transferfrom one jurisdiction to another. This study alsoidentifies a planning-level cost estimate for transfers,providing decision makers with data to makeinformed decisions.
Approach
The project had two phases:
Phase 1 established guiding principles, evaluated thehistory and prior studies of jurisdictional transfers, developed an approach for identifyingmisalignments, piloted the approach, and defined an agreed-upon process for applying the approach.
Phase 2 applied the process defined in Phase 1 to build a misalignment register and transfer program,along with prioritizing the segments into implementation tracks and identifying planning-level costestimates for the transfer program.
This report combines the approach and findings from both phases to provide a comprehensive report.
Misaligned Segments Identification Process/Approach
The project focused on routes that are owned by state, counties, cities, and townships—but excludedthe interstate system since its ownership is already well established.
The approach for identifying segments that may be misaligned is summarized as follows.
Step 1: Divide network into three tiers for analysis based on probability of misalignment
The project team1 divided the network into three tiers for analysis based on the probability of misalign-ment by cross-referencing the route system and functional class.
The route system defines the owner of the segments, while the functional class defines the primarypurpose of the road. The project team used the overarching goals of each agency to cross-reference theroute system and functional class. For example, Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT)key goal of mobility means that routes with a functional class of principal arterial and many minorarterials and major collectors should be owned by MnDOT. Roads with a functional class of minorcollectors and local roads are primarily intended to serve a local purpose, such as providing direct accessto homes, businesses, and farms. The team divided the road network into three tiers that indicate theprobability of misalignment based on cross-referencing the route system and functional class. The threetiers are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 cross-references the route system (shown in rows)and the functional class (shown in columns) to indicate the number of miles that fall within eachgrouping. Table 2 summarizes the mileage information by tiers (shown in rows) and segment owners(shown in columns).
1 For the purposes of this document, the project team is defined as Parsons Brinckerhoff Consultants, MnDOTPlanning Director and State Aid Staff.
A 14-member project steeringcommittee comprising of
representatives from counties, cities,townships and MnDOT guided theproject from start to the end. The
representatives included membersfrom both urban and rural areas of
the state to ensure a holisticapproach.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3
Table 1. Analysis tiers and mileage chart
Road System Owner
Principal Arterial
MinorArterial
MajorCollector
MinorCollector Local Total
Total byJurisdictionInterstate
OtherFreeway/
Expressway OtherInterstate highway State* 914 914 914State highway State 166 4,143 5,561 1,046 18 9 10,942 10,942County state-aid highway Counties 81 2,863 15,049 10,028 2,564 30,584
46,600County road Counties 83 514 1,433 12,296 14,326Unorganized territory road Counties 4 4 1,682 1,690Municipal state-aid street Cities 32 610 1,319 1,421 3,382
22,199Municipal street Cities 0 41 351 30 18,395 18,816Township road Township 19 76 355 53,268 53,717 53,717Parks and other roads Parks or private 1 64 163 4,101 4,329 4,329Total 914 166 4,256 9,178 18,422 12,030 93,735 138,702 138,702Total without interstate and parks and other roads 133,459
*Policies dictated by FHWA, managed by State
Legend
Tier 1—High misalignment probabilityTier 2—Medium misalignment probabilityTier 3—Low misalignment probabilityNot applicableExcluded from analysis
Table 2. Analysis tiers by jurisdictionTier MnDOT Counties Cities Townships Total
Tier 1 (high misalignment probability) 27 2,644 32 19 2,722Tier 2 (medium misalignment probability) 6,606 12,300 651 431 19,989Tier 3 (low misalignment probability) 4,310 31,656 21,515 53,268 110,748Excluded from analysis (not applicable) 5,243Total 10,942 46,600 22,199 53,717 138,702
4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Step 2: Obtain detailed information for segments for further analysis
The team then obtained detailed information for each road segment to prepare a listing of all segmentsfor analysis. This information included current owner, mile beginning and end points, functional class,and location (county and city). The team also prepared maps to present the same information visually,allowing reviewers to view both the road network and individual segments for further review andanalysis. The listing of segments and maps was prepared for a subset of the road network. This includesTier 1 segments that are either owned by MnDOT or functionally classified as principal arterials andTier 2 segments that are owned by MnDOT.
Step 3: Review segments with appropriate team members against established parameters
The first part in this step involved establishing a set of consistent parameters against which all thesegments can be reviewed. The project team discussed various parameters before agreeing on a set ofunambiguous parameters that were reviewed qualitatively for each segment. Some of these parametersincluded the following:
Road system continuity preferencesSystem spacingLocationSite of national, state, or local interestRelative traffic volumeIntermodal facilities
Step 4: Prepare revised preliminary misalignment register
This step involved revising the preliminary misalignment register to remove any segments that were notdeemed as misaligned and adding any segments that were missed in the identification process. Theseremaining misaligned segments were deemed as candidates for inter-agency transfer contingent upon adiscussion and agreement among agencies as well as funding availability.
Cost Estimation Approach
The primary objective of this task was to establish planning-level costs for all segments on themisalignment register to ensure they are in good condition before a segment could be considered for atransfer. The project team approached this by considering various treatments that may need to beapplied to roads and bridges to bring them up to good condition and design standards. The primaryintent of this approach is to provide a planning level estimate of the costs. Each segment will need to beestimated in further detail before a transfer can be negotiated between agencies. Table 3 and Table 4present the unit costs for pavements and bridges.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5
Table 3. Pavement unit costsMill/Overlay
(per lane mile)
Rehabilitation
(per lane mile)
Reconstruction
(per lane mile)
$150,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 (rural)
$2,000,000 (urban)
Table 4. Bridge unit costsMill/Overlay
(per sq ft)
Re-Decking
(per sq ft)
Reconstruction
(per sq ft)
$12 $60 $145
Findings
Misaligned Segment Mileage
The team identified a total of 1,181 centerline miles as misaligned out of the 6,746 centerline miles thatthe project focused on. This includes about 97 miles of segments that are potentially misaligned butrequire a comprehensive transportation area study to determine misalignment and/or alternate routes.The 1,181 centerline miles translate to 2,653 lane miles and are comprised of 151 individual segments.These segments range in length from 0.05 centerline miles to 36 centerline miles, with a median lengthof 6.47 centerline miles.
Primary Reasons for Misalignment
The primary reasons for misalignment are presented in Chart 1.
6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Chart 1. Primary reasons for misalignment
Misaligned segment mileage by implementation tracks
The misaligned miles were broken into three tracks (tracks 1 to track 3) based on the simplicity or easeof transfers. The intent of the prioritization is not to identify specific segments that can be transferredfirst – but to categorize them for planning purposes.
Segments in Track 1 are identified as the routes that would be simpler to transfer due to the currentcondition, prior discussions between jurisdictions, as well as other conditions (such as not being aconstitutional route).
This mileage is presented in Table 5, and is broken down by segments that are misaligned on the statesystem and segments that are misaligned on all other systems.
Intermodalfacilities
0%
National HighwaySystem
2%
Length ofsegment/road
0%
Truck Traffic Volume4%
0%
Location9%
Road SystemContinuity
Preferences35%
Traffic Volume25%
System Spacing25%
Misalignment Reasons
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 7
Table 5. Misaligned segment mileage by implementation tracksTrack Misaligned on State
System
(Miles)
Misaligned onCounty System
(Miles)
Misaligned on CitySystem
(Miles)
Track 1 (simplest/easiest totransfer)
Centerline: 354Lane: 806
Centerline : 214Lane: 518
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
Track 2 (medium effort/complexityfor transfer)
Centerline : 441Lane: 882
Centerline : 13Lane : 40
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
Track 3 (most difficult/complex totransfer)
Centerline : 151Lane : 374
Centerline : 8Lane : 33
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
Transfer Program Costs
This section presents the planning-level costs for the misalignment register/transfer program. The costsfor all segments on the misalignment register/transfer program are largely based on the treatment to beapplied to each segment to bring it up to design standards. This is based on:
Condition of the road, and
Whether the road meets design standards.
The total cost identified for the entire transfer program is $1.44 billion, which translates to $1.22 millionper centerline mile, or about $542,000 for each lane mile (including bridges).
Details on the cost estimation process are presented in Section 5.2 of the detailed report.
The transfer program costs are presented in Table 6. Track 0 represents funds for segments that havealready been transferred from the state to other agencies and the funds have been committed2.
2 The segment transfers and resulting fund commitments listed under Track 0 were conducted after negotiationsbetween MnDOT and other jurisdictions.
8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Table 6: Transfer Program Costs
TrackMisaligned onState System
(Miles)
Funds Required forState to Other
Agency Transfers
Misaligned onOther Systems
(Miles)
Funds Required forOther Agencies to
State TransfersTrack 0(Committed toprior transfers)
-$242 m
--
Track 1(simplest/easiestto transfer)
Centerline : 354Lane : 806
$289 m Centerline : 214Lane: 518
$154 m
Track 2 (mediumeffort/complexityfor transfer)
Centerline : 441Lane : 882
$570 m Centerline : 13Lane : 40
$17 m
Track 3 (mostdifficult/complexto transfer)
Centerline : 151Lane : 374
$399 m Centerline : 8Lane : 33
$9 m
Next Steps
The information presented in this report is intended to provide an understanding of the magnitude ofmisalignments and planning-level estimates of all transfers. This information can be used to:
Communicate the business benefits of addressing misalignments to the traveling public andjurisdictional stakeholders
Discuss misaligned segments and determine mutual benefits with other jurisdictions (e.g. betteralignment of maintenance and capital expenditures)
Utilize the provided framework to independently analyze parts of the road network that werenot studied with this project
Establish timing for misalignment transfers based on available funding
Use the framework at a programmatic level in the scoping process to include criterion that asksthe question, “is it owned by the right jurisdiction?”
Guide future transfer priorities
Discuss policy questions such as:
o Transfer program queue
o Transfer timing, given agency agreement and funding availability
o How to better communicate benefits of transfers to all stakeholders, including thetraveling public
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 9
Detailed ReportTable of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................10
2. Project objectives ...........................................................................................................................12
2.1 Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................................12
3. Overall Project Approach................................................................................................................13
3.1 Phase 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Phase 2 Approach .......................................................................................................................14
4. Detailed Approach Elements ..........................................................................................................17
4.1 Misaligned Segments Identification Process/Approach ...............................................................17
4.2 Cost Estimation Approach ...........................................................................................................23
4.3 Project Prioritization Criteria and Implementation Tracks ...........................................................26
5. Findings..........................................................................................................................................27
5.1 Misaligned Segment Mileage ......................................................................................................27
5.2 Primary Reasons for Misalignment ..............................................................................................28
5.3 Misaligned Segment Mileage by Implementation Tracks .............................................................29
5.4 Transfer Program Costs ...............................................................................................................30
5.5 County Pilots Details ...................................................................................................................31
6. Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................32
Appendix A: Definitions..........................................................................................................................33
Appendix B: Misalignment Map Overview ..............................................................................................38
1. Statewide....................................................................................................................................38
2. Metro District .............................................................................................................................39
Appendix C: Listing of Misaligned Segments ...........................................................................................40
Appendix D: County Pilots – Misalignment Maps & Registers .................................................................57
1 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
1. IntroductionThis document presents the final report of the Minnesota jurisdictional realignment project, divided intoan executive summary and a detailed report.
The overall objective for this project was to ensure that Minnesota roads are owned and operated at theright jurisdictional level. This project developed and applied a methodology to identify roadwaysegments that are not owned by the right level of government (referred to as misaligned). This projectalso provides additional information that can be usedas a basis from which a jurisdictional transfer processand program can be established to remedy themisalignments.
To accomplish these objectives, the projectestablished a standard and consistent approachwhich can be used to identify segments the differentjurisdictional interests in Minnesota—the state,counties, cities, and townships—agree are“misaligned.” The project then applied this approachto build a misalignment register.
It has long been recognized in Minnesota that thejurisdictional responsibilities for roadways need to be reassessed to ensure their efficient and effectivemanagement. The issue and discussion of jurisdictional alignment has been ongoing. The topic became ahighly focused issue in the 1980s and has been revisited since then. A total of seven studies wereconducted between 1983 and 1998 on the subject, and all studies acknowledged misalignments in thestate and agreed that it was necessary to ensure that the “right roads are at the right level” ofgovernment.
The key issues with misaligned roads as identified in prior studies and through this study are as follows:
Misaligned roads may not provide appropriate level of service for users in terms of both capacityand customer expectations, such as safety, ride quality and maintenance
Misaligned roads may use the wrong source of funding, which may not contain required fundsfor improvements. This may result in a lower service level than if the road was properlyaligned/owned by the appropriate jurisdiction
Misaligned roads may lead to an “impaired” network of roads due to differing jurisdictionpriorities (that is, the road conditions may change significantly while traveling and may not meettraveler’s expectations)
Misaligned roads may not receive the priority for funding or improvements, and as a result,misaligned roads that are widely used may be underserved while others may be over-served
Looking forward, a guiding principle inMinnesota’s 50-year vision is to
“strategically fix the system,” whichincludes reviewing parts of the system
that may need to be reduced whileother parts that may need to beenhanced or expanded to meet
changing demand - ensuring thatroads are aligned with the proper
jurisdictional owner.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1 1
This study goes beyond the scope of prior studies, in thatthis project identifies specific segments that aremisaligned and considered candidates for transfer fromone jurisdiction to another. This study also identifies aplanning-level cost estimate for transfers, providingdecision makers with data to make informed decisions.
The overall project has been divided into two phases.
Phase 1 established guiding principles, evaluated thehistory and prior studies of jurisdictional transfers,developed an approach for identifying misalignments,piloted the approach, and defined an agreed-uponprocess for applying the approach.
Phase 2 applied the process defined in Phase 1 to build a misalignment register including planning-levelcost estimates, which will act as a basis for initiating transfers based on interagency agreement andavailable funding.
This report combines the approach and findings from both phases to provide a comprehensive report.
A 14-member project steeringcommittee comprising of
representatives from counties,cities, townships and MnDOT
guided the project from start tothe end. The representativesincluded members from both
urban and rural areas of the stateto ensure a holistic approach.
1 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
2. Project objectivesThe overall objective for this project is to ensure that Minnesota roads are owned and operated at theright jurisdictional level. Phase 1 of the project defined a methodology, which in Phase 2 has beenimplemented on a subset of all Minnesota roads to identify specific segments that are not at the rightlevel of government. This information was used to establish a preliminary transfer program – a listing ofsegments that are misaligned along with planning-level cost estimates.
2.1 Guiding Principles
The guiding principles of the methodology include the following:
Holistic approach—the project focuses on all jurisdictions and in both directions of transfer(e.g., state to county and vice versa)
Aid in achieving 50-year goal—the project looks at ways to “strategically fix the system”—thatis, get the right roads at the right level of government and develop a realignment method thatcan be used in the future
Collaboration and constant feedback—the project is transparent and collaborative amongst abroad project team
Implementable—the project creates an approach that can be easily and consistentlyimplemented across the state, subject to agreement between parties
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1 3
3. Overall Project ApproachThis section presents the overall approach for the project.
As mentioned earlier in this document, Phase 1 of the project established guiding principles, evaluatedthe history and prior studies, developed an approach for identifying misalignments, piloted theapproach, and defined an agreed-upon process for applying the approach. Phase 2 applied the processdefined in Phase 1 to build a misalignment register, which is intended to act as a basis for initiatingtransfers based on interagency agreement and available funding.
A high level approach is presented in Chart 2, followed by short description of each task.
Chart 2. High-level approach
3.1 Phase Approach
Conduct baseline problem analysis, identify risks and issues
This task consisted of conducting a literature review of completed studies that address realignmentrelated issues, understanding and reviewing available network data, and identifying key issues withmisaligned roadways.
8Consolidatemisalignment information to prepare formal register and transfer program
findings
Conduct pilots with three counties to test approach
Establish realignment teams in each district and conduct district system reviews
Identify district champions and conduct preliminary segment review
Conduct pilot to test approach and finalize
Define process to identify misaligned segments
Conduct baseline problem analysis, identify risks and issuesPhase 1
DefineMisalignedSegments
IdentificationApproach
Phase 2
ImplementApproach
and IdentifyMisalignedSegments
1 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Define process to identify misaligned segments
This task formed the majority of the phase and included defining a process to identify misalignedsegments. The segment identification approach is detailed in Section 5 – Detailed Approach Elements.
Conduct pilot to test approach and finalize
This task consisted of piloting the segment identification process/approach with two districts to validateit and revise as necessary. The final output of this phase was a Phase 1 report that explains the segmentidentification approach in detail.
3.2 Phase Approach
Identify district champions and conduct preliminary segment review
This task included identifying champions and facilitators in each district to help apply the segmentidentification approach and facilitate discussions with local partners. The planning directors from eachdistrict were identified as district champions for the project, and district state-aid engineers wereidentified as the facilitators for the project. The district champions’ role of the project was as follows:
Primary point of contact for local partners (counties, cities, local/municipal agencies)Helped apply segment identification approachHelped coordinate and plan district work effortsHelped identify and agree upon candidate transfer segments
The primary role of project facilitators was to facilitate discussions with local partners and provide localpartner input.
The project team3 reviewed the segment identification approach with the district champions andfacilitators, explained the approach and answered any questions.
The team prepared a listing of a subset of segments4 that were identified as preliminary misalignmentsusing the criteria in Phase 1 and prepared accompanying maps to view the segments.
The district champions then identified segments that were not deemed to be misaligned, thus filteringthe list for discussions with local partners. The primary outcome of this task was a revised preliminarymisalignment register listing segments by each district.
3 For the purposes of this document, the project team is defined as Parsons Brinckerhoff Consultants, MnDOTPlanning Director and State Aid Staff.4 The subset of segments that were in scope for this project included Tier 1 segments that are either owned byMnDOT or functionally classified as principal arterials and Tier 2 segments that are owned by MnDOT. These tiersare explained in Section 5.1 - Misaligned Segments Identification Process/Approach, Step 2.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1 5
Establish realignment teams in each district and conduct district system reviews
Realignment teams were established in each district as a part of this task working with the districtchampions and facilitators. These district realignment teams consisted of:
District champion
District facilitator
County engineers
City engineer representatives
Township representatives
The second part of this task included conducting areview of the preliminary misalignment register ineach district. A meeting was conducted in eachdistrict to discuss all segments on the register, reasons for misalignment, risks associated with segmenttransfers (if any), and agreed if the segments were misaligned or not.
The outcome of this task was a revised misalignment register which included misaligned segments byeach district.
Conduct pilots with counties to test approach
This task included piloting the segment identification approach with three counties to ensure theapproach is feasible and applicable to all parts of the road network within the state. The project teaminvited all counties to volunteer, and identified three volunteers to test the approach.
The volunteer counties included Kandiyohi, Otter Tail and Douglas counties. The project team firstprepared an inventory of all preliminarily misaligned segments and accompanying maps that were not inthe subset used for prior tasks. The project team then met with the county engineers as well astownship and city representatives to discuss the segments. The project team then tweaked the segmentidentification process to ensure standard applicability across the state. The project team then conducteddiscussions with each county to review all segments and prepare a misalignment register for eachcounty. Further details on the county pilots are presented in Section 5.5 –County Pilots Details.
Consolidate misalignment information to prepare formal register and transfer programfindings
This task consisted of consolidating all misalignment information from districts to create a central,formal register. The team then sent the register to the district realignment teams for validation,ensuring that the identified segments were recorded correctly. The transfer program developmentincluded the following activities:
Establishing planning-level cost estimates for misaligned segments
Establishing prioritization criteria
Establishing transfer program based on priorities and available funding
The project team formed a total ofeight realignment teams (one
realignment team in each district), andthese teams included a total of over
110 team members - including MnDOT,counties, cities and township
representatives.
1 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Establish planning-level cost estimates for misaligned segments
This task consisted of the following steps:
Determine standard treatment categories for roads and bridges through discussions with stateaid engineers and district planners
Determine planning-level unit costs for the standard treatment categories through discussionswith state aid engineers, county engineers and district planners
Obtain existing condition information from MnDOT pavement and bridge management systemsto determine treatment required
Obtain current condition information (including compliance to design standards) andrecommended treatments from county engineers
Utilize planning-level cost information to calculate costs to transfer all misaligned segments
Establish prioritization criteria
This task consisted of defining criteria to prioritize segments for transfer into three tracks (from easiestto most difficult to transfer). The criteria were defined based on feedback received from therealignment teams through the course of the project.
Establish transfer program based on priorities and available funding
This task included developing the transfer program by combining the planning-level cost estimates withthe prioritization criteria.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1 7
4. Detailed Approach Elements4.1 Misaligned Segments Identification Process/Approach
This section presents the process/approach to identify segments that may be misaligned and arecandidates for transfer from one jurisdiction to another. The project team first divided the network intothree tiers for analysis based on the probability of misalignment by cross-referencing the route systemand functional class.
The route system defines the owner of the segments, while the functional class defines the primarypurpose of the road. The project team used the overarching goals of each agency to cross-reference theroute system and functional class. For example, MnDOT’s key goal of mobility means that routes with afunctional class of principal arterial, many minor arterials and major collectors should be owned byMnDOT. Roads with a functional class of minor collectors and local roads are primarily intended to servea local purpose, such as providing direct access to homes, businesses, and farms. The definitions forroute systems and functional classifications which aid the segment analysis and identification processare presented in Appendix A of this document. The route system definitions presented below arederived from Minnesota statutes and clarified through feedback from the project’s steering committee,while the functional classification definitions are obtained from FHWA functional classificationguidelines5.
The segment identification analysis is based on a set of metrics, or properties of road segments and thecurrent owner.
Exclusions
The following roads will be excluded from the analysis since their ownership is well-established. Anyspecial roads that may be identified as candidates for transfer (by any involved parties) will be treatedon a case-by-case basis:
Interstate routes “Special roads”National park roadsNational forest development roadsIndian reservation roadsState forest roadsState park roadsMilitary roadsNational monument roadsNational wildlife refuge roadsState game reserve roadsMetropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
Chart 3 presents the high-level approach for identifying candidate segments for transfer.
5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/functional_classification/fc02.cfm#ad
1 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Chart 3. High-level segment analysis approach
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 1 9
Step 1: Divide network into three tiers for analysis based on probability of misalignment
The project team divided the network into three tiers for analysis based on the probability of misalign-ment by cross-referencing the route system and functional class.
These tiers are presented in Table 7 in the form of a mileage chart that cross-references the routesystem (shown in rows) and the functional class (shown in columns) to indicate the number of miles thatfall within each grouping. Tier 1 indicates segments that have the highest probability of beingmisaligned, and are marked in red in the tables. Tier 2, marked in yellow, indicates segments with amedium probability of misalignment. Tier 3, marked in green, indicates segments with a low probabilityof misalignment. The segments that were excluded from the analysis are marked in gray.
Table 8. summarizes the mileage information by tiers (shown in rows) and segment owners (shown incolumns).
2 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Table 7. Analysis tiers and mileage chart
Road System Owner
Principal Arterial
MinorArterial
MajorCollector
MinorCollector Local Total
Total byJurisdictionInterstate
OtherFreeway/
Expressway OtherInterstate highway State* 914 914 914State highway State 166 4,143 5,561 1,046 18 9 10,942 10,942County state-aid highway Counties 81 2,863 15,049 10,028 2,564 30,584
46,600County road Counties 83 514 1,433 12,296 14,326Unorganized territory road Counties 4 4 1,682 1,690Municipal state-aid street Cities 32 610 1,319 1,421 3,382
22,199Municipal street Cities 0 41 351 30 18,395 18,816Township road Township 19 76 355 53,268 53,717 53,717Parks and other roads Parks or private 1 64 163 4,101 4,329 4,329Total 914 166 4,256 9,178 18,422 12,030 93,735 138,702 138,702Total without interstate and parks and other roads 133,459
*Policies dictated by FHWA, managed by State
Legend
Tier 1—High misalignment probabilityTier 2—Medium misalignment probabilityTier 3—Low misalignment probabilityNot applicableExcluded from analysis
Table 8. Analysis tiers by jurisdictionTier MnDOT Counties Cities Townships Total
Tier 1 (high misalignment probability) 27 2,644 32 19 2,722Tier 2 (medium misalignment probability) 6,606 12,300 651 431 19,989Tier 3 (low misalignment probability) 4,310 31,656 21,515 53,268 110,748Excluded from analysis (not applicable) 5,243Total 10,942 46,600 22,199 53,717 138,702
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 2 1
Step 2: Obtain detailed information for segments for further analysis
The team then obtained detailed information for each road segment to prepare a listing of all segmentsfor analysis. This information included current owner, mile beginning and end points, functional class,and location (county and city). The team also prepared maps to present the same information visually,allowing reviewers to view both the road network and individual segments for further review andanalysis.
The project team discussed the scope of the project to identify a subset of the road network that couldbe analyzed and further discussed in the allotted project schedule. This subset was identified as all Tier 1segments that are either owned by MnDOT or functionally classified as principal arterials and Tier 2segments that are owned by MnDOT.
This allowed the project team to further prepare an approach that could be thoroughly tested, but couldbe ultimately applied to the entire road network by the involved jurisdictions.
The listing of segments and maps was then prepared for this subset of road network.
Step 3: Review segments with appropriate team members against established parameters
The first part in this step involved establishing a set of consistent parameters against which all thesegments can be reviewed. The project team reviewed and discussed various parameters beforeagreeing upon a set of unambiguous parameters that are reviewed qualitatively for each segment. Theparameters included the following:
Road system continuity preferences (road begins or ends with another a different jurisdiction)System spacing (the road network is relatively too dense or too sparse in the vicinity for theowning jurisdiction)Location (the segment is located within specific boundaries inconsistent with the owningjurisdiction)Relative traffic volumeLength of segment/road (segment is short, with other jurisdiction owning most of the road fromthe start/end point or intersection)Truck traffic volume (higher truck traffic volume than surrounding roads)Site of national, state, or local interest (site of national, state, or local interest that requiresbeing on a state-connected road)Road restrictions (any restrictions for travel on the road) Intermodal facilities (segment servesan intermodal facility and is of statewide importance)
Specifically, traffic volume information (in the form of Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT]) was found tobe particularly helpful to further segregate Tier 2 segments. Further, for Tier 2, the team agreed onsome additional factors:
Identifying new alternative routes that have altered, or may alter, traffic patterns significantly(e.g., a new highway that bypasses a city would result in an old state road to become a city road)
Identifying other considerations based on location, geography, etc.
2 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Step 4: Prepare revised preliminary misalignment register
This step involved revising the preliminary misalignment register to remove any segments that were notdeemed as misaligned and adding any segments that may be additionally identified during the process.
These misaligned segments are deemed as candidates for inter-agency transfer contingent upon adiscussion and agreement among agencies as well as funding availability.
Table 9 and Figure 1 present samples of the misalignment register in tabular and map formats.
Table 9. Preliminary misalignment register (table)
Figure 1. Preliminary misalignment register (map)
Source: Google Maps ©2012 Google
Preliminary Misalignment Register
Segment Information
DistrictTier &Classificatio
Route # Route System Owner Functional Class County City Street NameSegmentMiles
Beg. Pt. End Pt. Candidate Notes
6 Tier 2 SO 0251Minnesota StateHighway
State Major Collector Freeborn, MowerClarks Grove (terminus),Hollandale,
- 16.374 0.000 16.374 YesSystem spacing to Hwy 30 and I-90…transfer risk is that heavyloads may want to use it..
6 Tier 1 SO 0292Minnesota StateHighway
State Local Goodhue Red Wing Highway 292 0.314 0.5 0.814 YesBehind the fence of the Red Wing correctional facility. Should betransferred to the city of Red Wing. Due for an overlay.
6 Tier 1 SO 0298Minnesota StateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 6th Ave NE 0.759 0 0.759 YesPlanned to be transferred to the dept of corrections (from theloop close to state ave to the south end), the northern end hasn'tbeen discussed with the city of Fairbault
6 Tier 1 SO 0298Minnesota StateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 6th Ave NE 0.151 1 1.151 YesPlanned to be transferred to the dept of corrections (from theloop close to state ave to the south end), the northern end hasn'tbeen discussed with the city of Fairbault
6 Tier 1 SO 0299Minnesota StateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 6th Ave NE 0.674 0 0.674 Yes None
6 Other CO 14County State-AidHighway
County Minor Collector Olmsted Rochester - 4.22 8.22 12.44 Yes None
6 Tier 2 SO 0109 Minnesota StateHighway
State Minor Arterial Freeborn Alden (terminus) - 4.835 27.998 32.833 Yes None
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 2 3
4.2 Cost Estimation Approach
The primary objective of this task was to establish planning-level costs for all segments on themisalignment register to ensure they are in good condition before a segment could be considered for atransfer. The project team approached this by considering various treatments that may need to beapplied to roads and bridges to bring them up to good condition and design standards. Sincerequirements and practices vary, each segment will need to be discussed by involved parties in furtherdetail before a transfer can be negotiated. A mutual agreement among the agencies on scope of workand funding is required before a transfer can occur. Chart 4 presents the cost estimation approach and isfollowed by a short description of the approach and unit costs.
Chart 4. Cost estimation approach
The team first discussed standard treatment categories and unit cost estimates with state aid engineersand district planners, and established both. The team then obtained unit cost estimates from MnDOTpavement and bridge management systems to compare MnDOT unit cost estimates to the district unitestimates.
Determine standard treatment categories
The project team identified three key treatments for both roads and bridges through discussions withstate aid engineers and district planners. These are:
Apply unit costs to prepare transfer program cost
Calculate treatment to perform based on condition and design standards
Obtain information on segments’ compliance with design standards
Obtain condition of segments from MnDOT management systems and stakeholders
Obtain unit cost estimates for standard treatment categories
Determine standard treatment categories
2 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Mill and Overlay:o Pavements and bridges: This includes milling the road/bridge deck and overlaying with
up to 2 inches of new asphalt material. This may also be known as “mill and pave” orjust “overlay” for bridges
Rehabilitation:o Pavements: This includes milling and overlaying the road to a greater depth to
significantly extend the pavement life. This may also be known as “reconditioning”Re-decking
o Bridges: This includes replacing the deck by remove the barriers and all deck concrete tothe top of the girders and rebuilding it
Reconstruction:o Reconstructing the road, which generally means replacing the road except for the base
and widening the road if neededo Reconstructing the bridge, which generally means replacing the superstructure and
updating the substructure
Obtain unit cost estimates for standard treatment categories
The team interviewed state aid engineers in different districts to obtain their unit cost estimates for theaforementioned treatments and discussed factors that may affect costs. According to the staffinterviewed, the primary factor that affects pavement costs is whether the project is located in an urbanarea vs. a rural area. This cost difference may be a result of higher material costs as well as other designrequirements such as wider shoulder requirements, sidewalk requirements, or other requirementsspecific to urban areas. There was no identified variation between bridge costs in urban or rural areas.That said, many urban bridges have bicycle/pedestrian lanes (which are included in the bridge squarefootage) while many rural bridges don’t.
The project team, in parallel, obtained unit cost estimates from MnDOT’s pavement and bridgemanagement systems.
The unit costs that were identified for pavements and bridges through both sources are presented inTable 10 and Table 11.
Table 10. Pavement unit costsSource Mill/Overlay
(per lane mile)
Rehabilitation
(per lane mile)
Reconstruction
(per lane mile)
Staff Interviewed
DistrictAverages
$125,000 $425,000 $800,000 (rural)
$1,750,000 (urban)
State-Aid Engineers &District Planners
Statewide $150,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 (rural)
$2,000,000 (urban)
MnDOT Office ofMaterials and RoadResearch
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 2 5
Table 11. Bridge unit costsSource Mill/Overlay
(per sq ft)
Re-Decking
(per sq ft)
Reconstruction
(per sq ft)
Staff Interviewed
DistrictAverages
$11 $95 $130 State-Aid Engineers &District Planners
Statewide $12 $60 $145 MnDOT Bridge Office
As seen in the above tables, the district averages are similar to the statewide values used in thepavement management system for both mill/overlay and reconstruction, while they are higher forrehabilitation and re-decking. The project team recommended using statewide unit prices for bothpavements and bridges since these are supported by historical data and are MnDOT statewidestandards. In addition, the team has added 10% to the above costs to account for preliminaryengineering costs as recommended by the project team.
Obtain condition of segments from MnDOT management systems and stakeholders
The project team obtained condition data from MnDOT’s pavement and bridge management systems todetermine the condition of the misaligned segments. The team contacted the state aid and countyengineers to obtain the condition for segments for which data was missing.
Obtain information on segments’ compliance with design standards
The project team asked the state aid engineers and county engineers to identify whether each segmentmet or did not meet design standards.
Calculate recommended treatment based on condition and design standards
The team then developed condition thresholds that would determine treatment to be applied to eachsegment and calibrated the thresholds based on MnDOT’s pavement management systemrecommendations. The team reviewed this information with the project management team andcalculated the treatment recommended on each segment based on the condition.
The team then asked the stakeholders (state aid engineers, county engineers and others) for feedback,and revised the treatments per the stakeholder feedback. Most of the revisions to the treatments weremade to account for the design standards of the segments. For example, a road in average conditionthat does not meet design standards was recommended for reconstruction, while a road in averagecondition that meets design standards was recommended for mill/overlay or rehabilitation.
Apply unit costs to prepare transfer program cost
The team combined the proposed treatments with the unit cost information to identify a planning-levelcost estimate for the transfer program.
2 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
4.3 Project Prioritization Criteria and Implementation Tracks
The project prioritization criteria were used to categorize misaligned segments into threeimplementation tracks (Tracks 1 to 3) based on the simplicity or ease of transfers.
The intent of the prioritization is not to identify specific segments that can be transferred first – but tocategorize them for planning purposes.
The project team identified five criteria for project prioritization and assigned weights to each criteria.These factors, weights and values that lead to simpler transfers are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Prioritization factors and weightsPrioritization Factors Weight
Constitutional route 25.0%
Bridge on route 20.0%
Discussed between parties 20.0%
Design Standard 15.0%
Condition 20.0%
Segments in Track 1 are identified as the ones that would be simpler to transfer due to the currentcondition, prior discussions between jurisdictions, as well as other conditions such as not being aconstitutional route. On the other hand, Track 3 segments would be most difficult or complex totransfer.
The project team then added Track 0 to account for segments that have already been transferred fromstate to other agencies and the funds have been committed to the transfers. These transfers wereconducted after negotiations between MnDOT and other jurisdictions.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 2 7
5. FindingsThis section presents the findings of the project and includes the following elements:
Misaligned segment mileage
Primary reasons for misalignment
Misaligned segment mileage by implementation tracks
Transfer program costs
5.1 Misaligned Segment Mileage
The project team initially began the analysis with a total of 138,702 centerline miles – the total numberof miles in the state of Minnesota.
The analysis mileage was then narrowed to 22,711 centerline miles based on the tiering process(explained in Section 4.1 - Misaligned Segments Identification Process/Approach). These miles include allsegments in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
As the project progressed, the project scope was further defined to include a subset of segments. Thisincluded Tier 1 segments that are either owned by MnDOT or functionally classified as principal arterialsand Tier 2 segments that are owned by MnDOT. These tiers are explained in Section 5.1 - MisalignedSegments Identification Process/Approach, Step 2. This mileage equaled 6,746 centerline miles, and theanalysis process primarily focused on these miles.
A total of 1,181 centerline miles were ultimately identified as misaligned at the end of the segmentreview process of Phase 2. This number of misaligned miles includes 97 miles of segments that areconsidered potentially misaligned but require a detailed area study to determine misalignment and/oralternate routes.
The focus on misaligned miles explained above is presented in Chart 5 in a graphical format.
2 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Chart 5. Misaligned miles identification and number of centerline miles
The 1,181 centerline miles translate to 2,653 lane miles and are comprised of 151 individual segments.These segments range in length from 0.05 centerline miles to 36 centerline miles, with a median lengthof 6.47 centerline miles.
Appendix B presents a map showing the misaligned segments while Appendix C presents acomprehensive listing of all segments that are identified as misaligned.
5.2 Primary Reasons for Misalignment
The primary reasons for misalignment are based on the parameters used to identify misalignments.
These reasons, in the order of most frequent to least frequent, are as follows:
Relative Traffic Volume (relative traffic volume is inconsistent with other roads owned by thejurisdiction in the vicinity)Road System Continuity Preferences (road begins or ends with another jurisdiction, or theprimary purpose is misaligned with the goals of the owning jurisdiction)System Spacing (the road network is relatively too dense or too sparse in the vicinity for theowning jurisdiction)Location (the segment is located within specific boundaries inconsistent with the owningjurisdiction)Truck Traffic Volume (higher truck traffic volume than surrounding roads)
Misaligned Segments
Misaligned on state system (946) | Misaligned on other systems (235) 1,181
Subset of Probable Misalignments (In Project Scope)
Tier 1 (state owned and principal arterials); Tier 2 (state owned) 6,746
High or Medium Probability of Misalignmnent: Miles
Tier 1 and Tier 2 miles (high or medium probability of misalignment) 22,711
Statewide Mileage
All statewide miles 138,702Phase 1 – Segment Tiering
Phase 1 – Scoping
Phase 2 – Segment Review and Findings
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 2 9
National Highway System (road on National Highway System)Intermodal facilities (segment serves an intermodal facility and is of statewide importance)Length of segment/road (segment is short, with other jurisdiction owning most of the road fromthe start/end point or intersection)
The information presented above is presented graphically in Chart 6.
Chart 6. Primary reasons for misalignment
5.3 Misaligned Segment Mileage by Implementation Tracks
As explained in Section 5.3 Project Prioritization Criteria and Implementation Tracks, the misalignedmiles were broken into three tracks -tracks 1 to track 3 (with an additional track 0 to account fortransfers that have already been undertaken). This mileage is presented in Table 13, and is broken downby segments that are misaligned on the state system and on all other systems.
Intermodalfacilities
0%
National HighwaySystem
2%
Length ofsegment/road
0%
Truck Traffic Volume4%
0%
Location9%
Road SystemContinuity
Preferences35%
Traffic Volume25%
System Spacing25%
Misalignment Reasons
3 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Table 13. Misaligned segment mileage by implementation tracksTrack Misaligned on
State System
(Miles)
Misaligned onCounty System
(Miles)
Misaligned onCity System
(Miles)
Track 1 (simplest/easiest to transfer) Centerline: 354Lane: 806
Centerline : 214Lane: 518
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
Track 2 (medium effort/complexity fortransfer)
Centerline : 441Lane: 882
Centerline : 13Lane : 40
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
Track 3 (most difficult/complex to transfer) Centerline : 151Lane : 374
Centerline : 8Lane : 33
Centerline : 0Lane : 0
5.4 Transfer Program Costs
This section presents the planning-level costs for the misalignment register/transfer program. The costsfor all segments on the misalignment register/transfer program are largely based on the treatment to beapplied to each segment to bring it up to design standards. As explained earlier in Section 5.2, CostEstimation Approach, the costs for transfers are based on:
Condition of the road and
Whether the road meets design standards
The total cost identified for the entire transfer program is $1. 44 billion, which translates to $1.22 m percenterline mile, or about $542,000 for each lane mile (including bridges).
The transfer program costs are presented in Table 14. Track 0 represents funds for segments that havealready been transferred and the funds have been committed6 .
6 The segment transfers and resulting fund commitments listed under Track 0 were conducted after negotiationsbetween MnDOT and other jurisdictions.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3 1
Table 14. Transfer Program CostsTrack Misaligned on
State System(Miles)
Funds Requiredfor State to
Other AgencyTransfers
Misaligned onOther Systems
(Miles)
Funds Requiredfor Other
Agencies toState Transfers
Track 0(Committed to priortransfers)
-$242 m
--
Track 1 (simplest/easiestto transfer)
Centerline : 354Lane : 806
$289 m Centerline : 214Lane: 518
$154 m
Track 2 (mediumeffort/complexity fortransfer)
Centerline : 441Lane : 882
$570 m Centerline : 13Lane : 40
$17 m
Track 3 (mostdifficult/complex totransfer)
Centerline : 151Lane : 374
$399 m Centerline : 8Lane : 33
$9 m
5.5 County Pilots Details
As discussed in Section 4.2, the segment identification approach was piloted with three counties toensure the approach is feasible and applicable to all parts of the road network within the state. Thethree pilot counties included Kandiyohi, Otter Tail, and Douglas counties.
The first step of the pilot included conducting a discussion with the counties and reviewing preliminarymisaligned segments. Representatives from cities as well as townships participated in the preliminaryreview meetings. The team then tweaked the segment identification process to add additional detailsfor misalignment reasons to ensure standard applicability across the state. The project team thenconducted follow-up sessions with each county to review all preliminary misaligned segments andprepare a misalignment register by county. Table 15 presents the number of miles misaligned in each ofthe pilot county. Appendix D presents the misalignment maps and listing of misaligned segments fromthe county pilots.
Table 15. County MisalignmentsCounty Misaligned on
County SystemMisaligned onCity System
Misaligned onTownship System
(Centerline Miles)
Kandiyohi 175 - 2
Otter Tail 16 5 3
Douglas 105 2 -
3 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
6. Next StepsThe information presented in this report is intended to provide an understanding of the magnitude ofmisalignments and planning-level estimates of all transfers. This information can be used to:
Communicate the business benefits of addressing misalignments to the traveling public andjurisdictional stakeholders
Discuss misaligned segments and determine mutual benefits with other jurisdictions (e.g. betteralignment of maintenance and capital expenditures)
Utilize the provided framework to independently analyze parts of the road network that werenot studied with this project
Establish timing for misalignment transfers based on available funding
Use the framework at a programmatic level in the scoping process to include criterion that asksthe question, “is it owned by the right jurisdiction?”
Guide future transfer priorities
Discuss policy questions such as:
o Transfer program queue
o Transfer timing, given agency agreement and funding availability
o How to better communicate benefits of transfers to all stakeholders, including thetraveling public
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3 3
Appendix A: DefinitionsThis section presents the definitions for route systems and functional classifications which aid thesegment analysis and identification process. The route system definitions presented below are derivedfrom Minnesota statutes and clarified through feedback from the project’s steering committee, whilethe functional classification definitions are obtained from FHWA functional classification guidelines.7
Route system definitions
The route system definitions below provide information presented in the statutes and as well as moredetailed information/definition as agreed upon by the project’s multi-jurisdictional team.
State roads (also known as “state highways”)
Statute 160.02, Subd. 29—“State highways or trunk highways” includes all roads established or to beestablished under the provisions of article 14, section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.
State roads provide the primary backbone of Minnesota’s transportation network. These roads arecritical to providing mobility across the state for people and goods, as well as ensuring economicdevelopment and growth. The state highway system in Minnesota includes about 10,942 centerlinemiles.
System primary goal—Statewide mobility (high speed)
County roads
Statute 160.02, Subd. 17—“County highways” includes those roads which have heretofore been or whichhereafter may be established, constructed, or improved under authority of the several county boards,including all roads lying within the county or on the line between counties established by judicialproceedings, except those roads established, constructed, or improved by the counties that have beenmaintained by the towns for a period of at least one year prior to July 1, 1957. All roads heretoforedesignated prior to July 1, 1957 as county-aid highways shall be county highways until abandoned orchanged in accordance with law.
County roads link different cities and townships within a county. A road within an unorganized territory,by default, is a county road. County roads provide mobility within the county and may have different(lower) speed limits than on state roads.
County state-aid highways (CSAH)
Statute 160.02, Subd. 18—“County state-aid highways” includes all roads established in accordance withlaw as county state-aid highways.
Municipal state-aid streets (MSAS)
Statute 160.02, Subd. 21—“Municipal state-aid streets” includes all streets within the cities having apopulation of 5,000 or more, established in accordance with law as municipal state-aid streets.
7 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/functional_classification/fc02.cfm#ad
3 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
City roads
City roads primarily serve residents of a particular city. They are designed to provide access to homesand commercial establishments and provide intra-city mobility. City roads primarily consist of localstreets with multiple access points. These local streets tie to collectors with less access points. City roadsact as the first and last leg of connectivity for most trips. City roads may include roads with high AADT—for example, a road that leads to a major shopping location (e.g., Mall of America). Typically, a road withthe primary use of “passing-by” a city, including trucks, is not owned by cities.
Township roads
Statute 160.02, Subd. 28—“Town roads” includes those roads and cartways which have heretofore beenor which hereafter may be established, constructed, or improved under the authority of the several townboards, roads established, constructed, or improved by counties that have been maintained by the townsfor a period of at least one year prior to July 1, 1957.
Minnesota Administrative Rules (8820.0100), Subp. 17b—“Town road” means a road that ismaintained by a town or any other local unit of government acting as a town and open to the travelingpublic a minimum of eight months of the year as certified by the county highway engineer.
Township roads primarily serve residents of the town and transport people to and from cities, largerroads, or other township roads. These roads also provide connectivity to farm lands as well asrecreational areas (e.g., summer cabins). Township roads act as the first and last leg of connectivity formost trips.
Functional classification definitions
This section presents functional classification definitions derived from FHWA functional classificationguidelines. Although the FHWA guidelines include separate definitions for urban and rural classifica-tions, they have been merged here for consistency.
Principal arterial systemUrban principal arterial systemIn every urban environment there exists a system of streets and highways which can be identified asunusually significant to the area in which it lies in terms of the nature and composition of travel itserves. In smaller urban areas (under 50,000), these facilities may be very limited in number and extentand their importance may be primarily derived from the service provided to travel passing through thearea. In larger urban areas, their importance also derives from service to rural-oriented traffic butequally, or even more, important from service for major movements within these urbanized areas.
This system of streets and highways is the urban principal arterial system and should serve the majorcenters of activity of a metropolitan area, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest tripdesires and should carry a high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. Thesystem should be integrated, both internally and between major rural connections.
The principal arterial system should carry the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area,as well as the majority of through movements desiring to bypass the central city. In addition, significantintra-area travel, such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas between
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3 5
major inner city communities, or between major suburban centers should be served by this system.Frequently the principal arterial system will carry important intra-urban as well as intercity bus routes.Finally, this system in small urban and urbanized areas should provide continuity for all rural arterialswhich intercept the urban boundary.
Because of the nature of the travel served by the principal arterial system, almost all fully and partiallycontrolled access facilities will be part of this functional system. However, this system is not restricted tocontrolled access routes. In order to preserve the identification of controlled access facilities, theprincipal arterial system is stratified as follows:
InterstateOther freeways and expresswaysOther principal arterials (with no control of access)
The spacing of urban principal arterials will be closely related to the trip-end density characteristics ofparticular portions of the urban areas. While no firm spacing rule can be established which will apply inall—or even most—circumstances, the spacing of principal arterials (in larger urban areas) may varyfrom less than 1 mile in the highly developed central business areas to 5 miles or more in the sparselydeveloped urban fringes.
For principal arterials, the concept of service to abutting land should be subordinate to the provision oftravel service to major traffic movements. It should be noted that only facilities within the “otherprincipal arterial” system are capable of providing any direct access to adjacent land, and such serviceshould be purely incidental to the primary functional responsibility of this system.
Rural principal arterial systemThe rural principal arterial system consists of a connected rural system of continuous routes having thefollowing characteristics:
Serve corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics indicative ofsubstantial statewide or interstate travel
Serve all, or virtually all, urban areas of 50,000 and over population and a large majority of thosewith population of 25,000 and over
Provide an integrated system without stub connections except where unusual geographic ortraffic flow conditions dictate otherwise (e.g., international boundary connections andconnections to coastal cities)
In the more densely populated states, this system of highways may not include all heavily traveledroutes which are multi-lane facilities. It is likely, however, that in the majority of states, the principalarterial system will include all existing rural freeways.
The principal arterial system is stratified into the following two subsystems:
Interstate System—The Interstate System consists of all presently designated routes of theInterstate System.
Other principal arterials—This system consists of all non-Interstate principal arterials.
3 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Minor arterial road/street systemUrban minor arterial street systemThe minor arterial street system should interconnect with and augment the urban principal arterialsystem and provide service to trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility thanprincipal arterials. This system also distributes travel to geographic areas smaller than those identifiedwith the higher system.
The minor arterial street system includes all arterials not classified as principal, contains facilities thatplace more emphasis on land access than the higher system, and offers a lower level of traffic mobility.Such facilities may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community continuity but ideally should notpenetrate identifiable neighborhoods. This system should include urban connections to rural collectorroads where such connections have not been classified as urban principal arterials.
The spacing of minor arterial streets may vary from 1/8 to 1/2 mile in the central business district to 2 to3 miles in the suburban fringes but should normally be no more than 1 mile in fully developed areas.
Rural minor arterial road systemThe rural minor arterial road system should, in conjunction with the principal arterial system, form arural system having the following characteristics:
Link cities and larger towns (and other traffic generators, such as major resort areas, that arecapable of attracting travel over similarly long distances) and form an integrated systemproviding interstate and inter-county service.
Be spaced at such intervals, consistent with population density, so that all developed areas ofthe state are within a reasonable distance of an arterial highway.
Provide (because of the two characteristics defined above) service to corridors with trip lengthsand travel density greater than those predominantly served by rural collector or local systems.Minor arterials, therefore, constitute routes whose design should be expected to provide forrelatively high overall travel speeds, with minimum interference to through movement.
Collector road/street systemUrban collector street systemThe collector street system provides both land access service and traffic circulation within residential,commercial, and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial system in that facilities on the collectorsystem may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials through the areato the ultimate destination. Conversely, the collector street also collects traffic from local streets inresidential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system. In the central business district, and inother areas of like development and traffic density, the collector system may include the street gridwhich forms a logical entity for traffic circulation.
Rural collector road systemThe rural collector routes generally serve travel of primarily intra-county rather than statewideimportance and constitute those routes on which (regardless of traffic volume) predominant traveldistances are shorter than on arterial routes. Consequently, more moderate speeds may be typical onaverage.
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3 7
In order to define more clearly the characteristics of rural collectors, this system should be sub-classifiedaccording to the following criteria:
Major collector roads—These routes should (1) provide service to any county seat not on anarterial route, to the larger towns not directly served by the higher systems, and to other trafficgenerators of equivalent intra-county importance, such as consolidated schools, shipping points,county parks, important mining and agricultural areas, etc. ; (2) link these places with nearbylarger towns or cities or with routes of higher classification; and (3) serve the more importantintra-county travel corridors.
Minor collector roads—These routes should (1) be spaced at intervals, consistent withpopulation density, to collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within areasonable distance of a collector road; (2) provide service to the remaining smallercommunities; and (3) link the locally important traffic generators with their rural hinterland.
Local road/street systemUrban local street systemThe urban local street system comprises all facilities not on one of the higher systems. It serves primarilyto provide direct access to abutting land and access to the higher order systems. It offers the lowestlevel of mobility and usually contains no bus routes. Service to through traffic movement usually isdeliberately discouraged.
Rural local road systemThe rural local road system should have the following characteristics: (1) serve primarily to provideaccess to adjacent land and (2) provide service to travel over relatively short distances as compared tocollectors or other higher systems. Local roads will constitute the rural mileage not classified as part ofthe principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector systems.
3 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Appendix B: Misalignment Map Overview1. Statewide
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 3 9
2. Metro District
4 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Appendix C: Listing of Misaligned SegmentsThis section presents a listing of all segments identified as misaligned through this project process. The segments indicated with an asterisk (*)are potentially misaligned but require a detailed study before their misalignment can be confirmed.
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
1 0011MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Koochiching International Falls
(terminus), Ranier 1.828 208.143 209.971 County KoochichingRoad system continuitypreferencesLocation
1 0027MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Carlton Moose Lake
(terminus) 1.365 246.258 247.623 County Carlton Traffic volumeSystem spacing
1 0169MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector St Louis, Lake Ely (terminus),
Winton (terminus) 4.199 415.07 419.269 County St Louis, LakeRoad system continuitypreferencesLocation
1 0289MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Carlton Moose Lake 0.512 0 0.512State prisonsystemCity (~.25 mi)
Moose Lake Road system continuitypreferences
1 0023MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Pine, Carlton,St Louis
Sandstone(terminus), Askov,Bruno, Kerrick,West Duluth(terminus)
4.445 281.266 285.711 CountyPineCarltonSt Louis
System spacing
1 0038MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Itasca
Grand Rapids(terminus),Bigfork, Effie(terminus)
18.67 28.096 46.766 County Itasca System spacingTraffic volume
1 0123MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Pine
Sandstone(terminus), Askov(Near)
8.037 0.000 8.037 County PineSystem spacingSite of national, state, orlocal interest
1 13CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial St Louis Duluth (near) 6.84 0.73 7.57 State MnDOT System spacing
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 4 1
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
10015(ForestHighway11)
CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorCollector
LakeSt. Louis
Makinen, Brimson(near) 6.25 0 6.25 State MnDOT
System spacingTruck traffic volumeSite of national, state, orlocal interest
10015(ForestHighway11)
CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorCollector
LakeSt. Louis
Makinen, Brimson(near) 17.476 7.34 24.816 State MnDOT
System spacingTruck traffic volumeSite of national, state, orlocal interest
10016(ForestHighway11)
CountyState-AidHighway
County MajorCollector
LakeSt. Louis
Makinen, Brimson(near) 35.71 31.876 67.586 State MnDOT
System spacingTruck traffic volumeSite of national, state, orlocal interest
1 0210MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Carlton, St.Louis
Carlton,Thomson, Duluth(terminus)
11.696 216.22 227.916 Other StateAgency
Department ofNaturalResources
Location
2 0002B US Highway State MinorArterial Polk East Grand Forks 0.334 0 0.334 City East Grand
Forks Location
2 0075 US Highway State MinorArterial
Polk,Marshall,Kittson
Crookston,Warren, Argyle,Stephen,Donaldson,Kennedy, Hallock,Humboldt, Noyes(terminus)
2.09 410.21 412.3 County Polk, Marshall,Kittson Traffic volume
2 0087MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Hubbard Park Rapids
(near), 18.72 39.436 58.156 County Hubbard Traffic volumeLocation
2 0089MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Roseau Roseau (near) 12.548 131.102 143.65 County Roseau Traffic volume
2 0102MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Polk Crookston (near),
Fertile (near) 19.297 0.000 19.297 County Polk Road system continuitypreferences
4 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
2 0172MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Lake of theWoods
Baudette(terminus) 11.515 0 11.515 County Lake of the
WoodsRoad system continuitypreferences
2 0220MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Marshall, Polk Oslo (near), 17.921 29.489 47.410 County Marshall
KittsonTraffic volumeTruck traffic volumeLocation
2 0220MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Marshall,Kittson Oslo (near), 26.128 52.408 78.536 County Marshall
KittsonTraffic volumeTruck traffic volumeLocation
2 0220MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Polk Climax (terminus) 23.371 0.426 23.797 County Polk Traffic volume
2 0222MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Red Lake Oklee (terminus) 1.474 0 1.474 County Red Lake Road system continuity
preferences
2 0223MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorCollector Clearwater Leonard
(terminus) 7.57 0 7.57 County Clearwater Road system continuitypreferences
2 0226MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Hubbard
Park Rapids(near), Nevis(near)
1.494 0 1.494 County HubbardRoad system continuitypreferencesTraffic volume
2 0308MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorCollector Roseau Badger (near),
Roseau (near) 1.277 0 1.277 County Roseau Traffic volume
2 0317MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Marshall Grafton, ND
(near) 1.444 0 1.444 County Marshall Traffic volumeLocation
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 4 3
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
2 92MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Red Lake Red Lake Falls
(near) 12.854 0 12.854 County Red Lake Location
2 197MinnesotaStateHighway
StatePrincipalArterial -Other
Beltrami Bemidji 5.295 1.032 6.327 City Bemidji Location
2 CSAH21
CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial
Thief River Falls,East Grand Forks 25.591 0 25.591 State MnDOT NHS
Traffic volume
2 CSAH 3CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial
Thief River Falls,East Grand Forks 12.760 0 12.76 State MnDOT Traffic volume
2 CSAH 2*CountyState-AidHighway
County MajorCollector Polk 11.930 6.09 18.02 State MnDOT Truck traffic volume
2 CSAH27*
CountyState-AidHighway
County MajorCollector Pennington 13.230 0 13.23 State MnDOT Truck traffic volume
2 CSAH28*
CountyState-AidHighway
County MajorCollector Pennington 3.500 0 3.5 State MnDOT Truck traffic volume
2 CSAH54*
CountyState-AidHighway
County MajorCollector Marshall 8.490 0 8.49 State MnDOT Truck traffic volume
3 0237MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Stearns New Munich
(terminus) 2.754 0 2.754 County Stearns Road system continuitypreferences
3 0241MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Wright St. Michael
(terminus) 3.56 0.000 3.560 County Wright Road system continuitypreferences
4 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
3 0301MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Sherburne Saint Cloud
(terminus) 1.059 0 1.059 County Sherburne Road system continuitypreferences
3 0309MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Crow Wing Brainerd 0.274 0 0.274 Department ofAdministration
Department ofAdministration
Road system continuitypreferences
3 0004MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Stearns
Lake Henry,Greenwald, MeireGrove
20.761 146.375 167.136 CountyLake Henry,Greenwald,Meire Grove
Traffic volume
3 0070MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Kanabec Grasston (near) 7.223 0 7.223 County Kanabec Location
3 0087MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Wadena Menahga
(terminus) 3.327 27.963 31.29 County Wadena Location
3 0087MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Cass Backus (terminus) 12.117 62.194 74.311 County Cass Traffic volume
Location
3 0107MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Isanti,Kanabec
Braham(terminus),Grasston(terminus)
11.452 6.119 17.571 County Isanti, Kanabec System spacing
3 0287MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Todd
Grey Eagle(terminus), LongPrairie (terminus)
14.423 0 14.423 County Todd Road system continuitypreferences
3 0075*MinnesotaStateHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
StearnsSt Augusta(terminus), SaintCloud (terminus)
7.368 5.6 12.968 State MnDOT Traffic volume
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 4 5
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
3 0075*MinnesotaStateHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
StearnsSaint Cloud(terminus), WaitePark, St Joseph
8.296 13.144 21.44 State MnDOT Traffic volume
3 0087MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Cass 7.795 75.406 83.201 County Cass Traffic volume
4 0029MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Douglas Alexandria 1.007 124.719 125.726 City Wadena Traffic volume
4 0054MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Grant Elbow Lake
(terminus) 10.851 0 10.851 County GrantRoad system continuitypreferencesTraffic volume
4 0104MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Pope Glenwood
(terminus) 22.441 18.454 40.895 County Pope System spacing
4 0114MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Pope
Starbuck(terminus), Lowry(terminus)
6.595 0.000 6.595 County PopeSystem spacingTraffic volumeLocation
4 0114MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Pope,Douglas Lowry (near) 12.697 7.258 19.955 County Pope, Douglas
System spacingTraffic volumeLocation
4 0117MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Traverse Wheaton (near) 1.797 0 1.797 County Traverse Location
4 0119MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Swift Appleton
(terminus) 5.298 9.810 15.108 County Appleton(terminus)
Traffic volumeLocation
4 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0225MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Becker Pine Point (near) 8.809 0 8.809 County Becker Road system continuity
preferences
4 0228MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Otter Tail Vergas (terminus) 7.785 0 7.785 County Otter Tail System spacing
4 0235MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Otter Tail
Parkers Prairie &Urbank (bothterminus)
10.027 0.000 10.027 County Otter Tail System spacing
4 0329MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorCollector Stevens Morris (Near) 0.68 0.432 1.112 U of M U of M
Road system continuitypreferencesMinimum length ofsegment/road
4 0034*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Clay, OtterTail
Barnesville(terminus), 1.202 0 1.202 County Clay Location
4 0087MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Becker Frazee (terminus),
Menahga (near) 27.963 0 27.963 County Becker Location
4 0108MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Wilkin, OtterTail
Pelican Rapids(terminus) 11.948 0.080 12.028 County Wilkin, Otter Tail Traffic volume
4 0108MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Otter Tail Pelican Rapids
(terminus), Dent 13.925 47.526 61.451 County Otter Tail Traffic volume
6 0020MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Goodhue Cannon Falls 3.064 0.000 3.064 County Goodhue System spacing
Traffic volume
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 4 7
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
6 0021*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Rice
Faribault(terminus),Shieldsville
1.932 0 1.932 City Faribault
6 0030MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Olmsted,Fillmore
Rushford(terminus) 20.794 244.840 265.634 County Olmsted,
FillmoreSystem spacingTraffic volume
6 0057MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Dodge,Goodhue
Kasson(terminus),Mantorville,Wanamingo
24.578 0.000 24.578 County Dodge, Goodhue Location
6 0074MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Winona,Wabasha
St Charles(terminus), Elba 8.552 43.075 51.627 County
DNRWinona andWabashaCounties, DNR
Traffic volume
6 0080MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Fillmore Wykoff, Fountain
(terminus) 8.431 0.000 8.431 County Fillmore System spacingLocation
6 0086CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Rice
Webster (near),Elko New Market(near)
4.077 3.943 8.02 State MnDOT
Included in Scott CountyComprehensive Plan(Metro)Scott County taking leadon transfer
6 0105MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Mower Austin (terminus) 12.065 0.000 12.065 City, County
City of Austin(part), Mowercounty
Traffic volumeSystem spacing
6 0139MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Fillmore Harmony
(terminus) 3.913 0.000 3.913 County FillmoreTraffic volumeRoad system continuitypreferences
6 0246MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Rice
Northfield(terminus),Nerstrand (near)
6.627 0 6.627 County RiceRoad system continuitypreferencesTraffic volume
4 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
6 0246MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorCollector
Northfield(terminus),Nerstrand (near)
4.603 6.627 11.23 County RiceRoad system continuitypreferencesTraffic volume
6 0250MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Fillmore Lanesboro
(terminus) 9.479 0.000 9.479 County Fillmore Traffic volumeLocation
6 0251MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
Freeborn,Mower
Clarks Grove(terminus),Hollandale,
16.374 0.000 16.374 County Freeborn, Mower System spacingTruck traffic volume
6 0292MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Goodhue Red Wing 0.314 0.5 0.814Red wingcorrectionalfacility
Red wingcorrectionalfacility
Road system continuitypreferences
6 0298MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 0.759 0 0.759Department ofCorrections,City
Department ofCorrectionsCity of Faribault
Road system continuitypreferences
6 0298MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 0.151 1 1.151Department ofCorrections,City
Department ofCorrectionsCity of Faribault
Road system continuitypreferences
6 0299MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Rice Faribault 0.674 0 0.674 City Faribault Road system continuitypreferences
6 CO 14CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorCollector Olmsted Rochester 4.22 8.22 12.44 State MnDOT System spacing
6 0109MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Freeborn Alden (terminus) 4.835 27.998 32.833 County Freeborn Road system continuity
preferences
7 0021*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Le Sueur Montgomery
(terminus) 2.998 17.088 20.086 County Le Sueur System spacing
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 4 9
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
7 0022MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Nicollet,Sibley
St Peter(terminus),Gaylord(terminus)
9.775 52.61 62.385 County Nicollet, Sibley System spacingTraffic volume
7 0091MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Nobles Ellsworth, Adrian,
Lismore (near) 13.807 0.000 13.807 County Nobles Traffic volumeLocation
7 0093MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Sibley Le Sueur
(terminus) 0.825 0.000 0.825 County SibleyLocationTruck traffic volumeSite of national, state, orlocal interest
7 0093MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Sibley
Le Sueur(terminus),Henderson(terminus)
3.899 1.700 5.599 County Sibley Location
7 0109MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Faribault
Winnebago(terminus),Delavan, Easton,Wells (terminus)
22.581 0.000 22.581 County FaribaultRoad system continuitypreferencesSystem spacing
7 0109MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Faribault Wells (terminus) 5.243 22.755 27.998 County Faribault
Road system continuitypreferencesSystem spacing
7 112MinnesotaStateHighway
State Le Sueur LeCenter toLeSueur 15.012 0.000 15.012 County Le Sueur Traffic volume
7 0253MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Faribault Bricelyn
(terminus) 6.472 0 6.472 County Faribault Road system continuitypreferences
7 0254MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Faribault Frost (terminus) 4.796 5.852 10.648 County Faribault Road system continuity
preferences
5 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
7 0257MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Brown Hanska (terminus) 3.991 0.000 3.991 County Brown Road system continuity
preferences
7 0258MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Brown Comfrey
(terminus), 10.811 0.000 10.811 County Brown Road system continuitypreferences
7 0263MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Martin Ceylon (terminus),
Welcome 11.226 0.000 11.226 County Martin Road system continuitypreferences
7 0264MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Nobles Round Lake
(terminus), 7.394 0 7.394 County Nobles Road system continuitypreferences
7 0270MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Rock Hills (terminus),
Steen (near) 7.659 0 7.659 County Rock Road system continuitypreferences
7 0913MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Waseca Waseca 0.49 30.73 31.22 Township Woodville Road system continuitypreferences
7 0913MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Waseca Waseca 0.08 31.467 31.547 City Waseca Road system continuitypreferences
7 860DMinnesotaStateHighway
StatePrincipalArterial -Other
Nicollet Mankato/NorthMankato 0.046 0.054 0.1 City Mankato/North
MankatoRoad system continuitypreferences
8 0267MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Murray Iona (terminus) 5.353 0.000 5.353 County Murray
Road system continuitypreferencesTraffic volume
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5 1
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
8 0274MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector
YellowMedicine
Wood Lake(terminus), 8.515 0.000 8.515 County Yellow Medicine Location
Traffic volume
8 0275MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Lac qui Parle Boyd (terminus) 6.519 0 6.519 County Lac qui Parle Road system continuity
preferences
8 0330MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Redwood Revere (near),Lamberton (near) 2.02 0 2.02 Township Location
8 Co Hwy25*
CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Lac Qui Parle Dawson 5.28 0 5.28 State MnDOT Road system continuity
preferences
8 0024MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Meeker Litchfield
(terminus), 15.608 0.000 15.608 County MeekerRoad system continuitypreferencesLocation
8 0277MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Chippewa Clara City (near) 11.025 0 11.025 County Chippewa Road system continuity
preferences
M 0003*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota
Northfield(terminus),Farmington,Rosemount, InverGrove Heights(terminus)
5.437 38.312 43.749 County DakotaRoad system continuitypreferencesStudy: potential principalarterial route
M 0005MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Ramsey St Paul (terminus) 6.655 64.694 71.349 County Ramsey Road system continuity
preferences
5 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
M 0005MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Ramsey
St Paul(terminus),Maplewood(terminus)
3.039 71.939 74.978 County Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 0005MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Ramsey
St Paul(terminus),Maplewood(terminus)
0.816 75.531 76.347 County Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 0005MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Washington
Oakdale(terminus), LakeElmo, Oak ParkHeights (terminus)
8.221 77.834 86.055 County Washington Road system continuitypreferences
M 0013*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota Burnsville 5.137 101.098 106.235 County Dakota
Requires furtherdiscussion to determine ifmisalignedRoad system continuitypreferences
M 0013MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota Mendota Hts. 5.459 106.235 111.694 County Dakota
Road system spacingRoad system continuitypreferences
M 0013MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Scott
New Prague(near), Jordan(near), Prior Lake(near)
10.182 71.951 82.133 County Scott Included in Scott CountyComprehensive Plan
M 0014CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
AnokaCoon Rapids(terminus), Blaine,Lino Lakes(terminus)
13.273 2.031 15.304 State MnDOT Road system continuitypreferences
M 0020MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota
Cannon Falls(near), Miesville(near)
4.407 3.064 7.471 County Dakota,Goodhue
Road system continuitypreferences
M 0021MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Scott
New Prague(terminus), Jordan(terminus)
9.923 28.13 38.053 County Scott Included in Scott CountyComprehensive Plan
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5 3
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
M 0023CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
Dakota Apple Valley(terminus) 1.255 19.493 20.748 State MnDOT Road system continuity
preferences
M 0032CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
DakotaBurnsville(terminus), Eagan(terminus)
1.921 2.689 4.61 State MnDOT Road system continuitypreferences
M 0036*CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
Ramsey St Paul (terminus) 2.45 0 2.45 State MnDOTI-35E Truck RouteCross-reference with Rt.0194 (same road)
M 0037*CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
Ramsey St Paul (terminus) 2.16 0 2.16 State MnDOTI-35E Truck RouteCross-reference with Rt.0194 (same road)
M 0042CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
Dakota
Burnsville(terminus), AppleValley,Rosemount(terminus)
17.525 0 17.525 State MnDOT Road system continuitypreferences
M 0042CountyState-AidHighway
CountyPrincipalArterial -Other
ScottPrior Lake(terminus),Savage
3.89 4.64 8.53 State MnDOT Included in Scott CountyComprehensive Plan
M 0047MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Hennepin,Anoka
Minneapolis(terminus),Columbia Heights,Fridley, CoonRapids (terminus)
10.994 1.906 12.900 County Hennepin,Anoka
Road system continuitypreferences
M 0050*MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota
Farmington(terminus),Hampton,Miesville (near)
7.255 11.898 19.153 County Dakota Further study needed,possible principal arterial
M 0051MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Ramsey
St Paul(terminus),Roseville, ArdenHills (terminus)
7.674 0.000 7.674 County Ramsey System spacing
5 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
M 0061* US Highway State MinorArterial Dakota Miesville 3.113 104.136 107.249 County Dakota Further study needed,
possible principal arterial
M 0061 US Highway State MinorArterial Dakota
Miesville (near),Hastings(terminus)
8.207 107.249 115.456 County Dakota System spacing
M 0061 US Highway State MinorArterial
Ramsey,Washington,Chisago
St Paul(terminus),Ramsey, VadnaisHeights, WhiteBear Lake, Hugo,Forest Lake,Wyoming(terminus)
28.681 136.496 165.177 CountyRamsey,Washington,Chisago
Road system continuitypreferences
M 0065MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Hennepin,Anoka
Minneapolis(terminus),Columbia Heights,Hilltop, Fridley(terminus)
6.232 1.861 8.093 County Hennepin,Anoka System spacing
M 0096MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Ramsey,Washington
White Bear Lake(terminus),Dellwood, Grant,Stillwater(terminus)
10.179 9.544 19.723 County Ramsey,Washington
Road system continuitypreferences
M 0078CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Scott Shakopee (near) 3.684 0 3.684 State MnDOT Included in Scott County
Comprehensive Plan
M 0086CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Scott
New Prague(near), CedarLake (near)
3.943 0 3.943 State MnDOT Included in Scott CountyComprehensive Plan
M 0101MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Carver Chanhassen
(terminus) 0.574 8.328 8.902 County Carver Road system continuitypreferences
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5 5
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
M 0101MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Carver Chanhassen
(terminus) 2.34 9.037 11.377 County Carver Road system continuitypreferences
M 0101MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Carver,Hennepin
Chanhassen(terminus) 2.034 13.432 15.466 County Carver,
HennepinRoad system continuitypreferences
M 0120MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Ramsey
Maplewood(terminus),Oakdale, North StPaul (terminus)
7.233 2.114 9.347 County Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 0149MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Dakota
Inver GroveHeights(terminus), Eagan(terminus)
2.862 0.000 2.862 County
Inver GroveHeights(terminus),Eagan(terminus)
Road system continuitypreferences
M 0149MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Dakota,Ramsey
Eagan (terminus),Mendota, St Paul(terminus)
5.779 4.145 9.924 County Dakota, Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 0156MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial
Dakota,Ramsey
South St Paul(terminus), StPaul (terminus)
4.201 0.000 4.201 County Dakota, Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 0244MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Washington
Mahtomedi(terminus),Dellwood(terminus)
4.705 2.525 7.230 County WashingtonTraffic volumeRoad system continuitypreferences
M 0282MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Scott Jordan (terminus) 7.655 0.000 7.655 County Scott Road system continuity
preferences
M 0284MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Carver
Cologne(terminus),Waconia(terminus)
5.651 0.000 5.651 County Carver Road system continuitypreferences
5 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
M 0291MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Dakota Hastings(terminus) 1.198 0.000 1.198 County Hastings Road system continuity
preferences
M 0291MinnesotaStateHighway
State Local Dakota Hastings(terminus) 0.12 2 2.12 County Hastings Road system continuity
preferences
M 0913MinnesotaStateHighway
State MajorCollector Dakota Mendota Heights
(terminus) 1.377 105.43 106.807City/Removeroad (retireroad)
Mendota Heights Road system continuitypreferences
M 952A US Highway State MinorArterial
Dakota,Ramsey
Inver GroveHeights(terminus), WestSt Paul, St Paul(terminus)
5.418 126.869 132.287 County Dakota, Ramsey Road system continuitypreferences
M 952A US Highway State MinorArterial Hennepin Minneapolis
(terminus) 0.643 140.168 140.811 County Hennepin Road system continuitypreferences
M 17CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Scott Shakopee (near) 6.523 0 6.523 State MnDOT Included in Scott County
Comprehensive Plan
M 33*CountyState-AidHighway
County MinorArterial Carver Waconia (near) 6.97 10.44 17.41 State MnDOT
Included in CarverCounty ComprehensivePlan
M 25MinnesotaStateHighway
State MinorArterial Carver Waconia (near) 7.556 27.296 34.852 County Carver
Included in CarverCounty ComprehensivePlan
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5 7
Appendix D: County Pilots Misalignment Maps RegistersThis section presents the misalignment maps and a listing of all segments identified as misaligned fromthe county pilots.
1a. Douglas County Map
5 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
1b. Douglas County Register
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0070 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria 0.72 0 0.72 City AlexandriaAlready turned back tocity
4 0070 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria 2.254 2.08 4.334 City AlexandriaAlready turned back tocity
4 0070 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria 0.575 5.2 5.775 City AlexandriaAlready turned back tocity
4 0090 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria 2.06 0 2.06 City Alexandria Serves local purpose
4 0111 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria 0.91 0 0.91 City AlexandriaAlready turned back tocity
4 0115MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Douglas Alexandria 0.75 0 0.75 County Douglas Location
4 0122MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Douglas Alexandria 0.41 0 0.41 County Douglas Location
4 0125MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Douglas Alexandria 0.94 0 0.94 County Douglas Location
4 0085 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria (near) 1.37 0 1.37 Township Alexandria Serves local purpose
4 0086 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria (near) 1.79 0 1.79 Township Hudson Serves local purpose
4 0089 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria (near) 3.5 0 3.5 Township Lake Mary,LaGrande
Serves local purpose
4 0091 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria (near) 1 0 1 Township Lake Mary,LaGrande
Serves local purpose
4 0093 County Road County Local Douglas Alexandria (near),Farwell (near) 3.049 0 3.049 Township Holmes City Serves local purpose
4 0031 CountyState-Aid County Local Douglas Alexandria (near),
Nelson (near), 5.35 0 5.35 Township Alexandria,Orange, Osakis
Serves local purpose
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 5 9
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
Highway Osakis (near)
4 0051 County Road County Local Douglas Ashby (near) 0.56 0 0.56 Township Lund Serves local purpose
4 0054 County Road County Local Douglas Barrett (near),Evansville (near) 2.017 0 2.017 Township Evansville Serves local purpose
4 0056 County Road County Local Douglas Hoffman (near) 1.583 0 1.583 Township Evansville,Urness
Serves local purpose
4 0056 County Road County Local Douglas Hoffman (near) 1.637 1.66 3.297 Township Evansville,Urness
Serves local purpose
4 0057 County Road County Local Douglas Brandon 4.715 0 4.715 City Brandon
Already turned back partto township. Discussingsegment within citylimits with city fortransfer
4 0155CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Brandon 0.64 0 0.64 City Brandon Serves local purpose
4 0056 County Road County Local Douglas Brandon (near),Garfield 5.54 11.34 16.88 City,
townshipsBrandon, Ida,LaGrande, Moe
Location
4 0158CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Carlos 0.28 0 0.28 City Carlos Serves local purpose
4 0159CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Carlos 0.11 0 0.11 City Carlos Serves local purpose
4 0153CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Evansville 0.07 0 0.07 City Evansville Serves local purpose
4 0055 County Road County Local Douglas Evansville (near) 4.18 0 4.18 Township Evansville Serves local purpose
4 0056 County Road County Local Douglas Evansville (near),Brandon (near) 4.314 3.94 8.254 Township
4 townships:Evansville,Brandon, Moe,Urness
Serves local purpose
4 0097 County Road County Local Douglas Kensington (near) 2.98 0 2.98 Township Holmes CityTownship
Serves local purpose
6 0 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0077 County Road County Local Douglas Forada (near) 1.97 0 1.97 Township Hudson, OrangeTownships
Serves local purpose
4 0088 County Road County Local Douglas Forada (near) 2.56 0 2.56 Township Lake MaryTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0110 County Road County Local Douglas Forada (near),Osakis (near) 4.72 0 4.72 Township Orange
TownshipServes local purpose
4 0094 County Road County Local Douglas Holmes City 1.58 0 1.58 Township Holmes CityTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0099 County Road County Local Douglas Kensington 3.01 0 3.01 Township Solem Township Serves local purpose
4 0096 County Road County Local Douglas Kensington (near) 4.41 0 4.41 TownshipHolmes City,SolemTownships
Serves local purpose
4 0099 County Road County Local Douglas Kensington (near) 3.42 3.91 7.33 Township Solem, HolmesCity Townships
Serves local purpose
4 0098 County Road County Local DouglasKensington(near), Farwell(near)
0.78 0 0.78 Township Solem Township Serves local purpose
4 0060 County Road County Local Douglas Millerville 2.33 0 2.33 Township MillervilleTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0052 County Road County Local Douglas Millerville (near) 1.571 0 1.571 Township Lund Township Serves local purpose
4 0053 County Road County Local Douglas Millerville (near) 1.53 0 1.53 Township MillervilleTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0060 County Road County Local Douglas Millerville (near) 2.53 2.58 5.11 Township Leaf ValleyTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0064 County Road County Local Douglas Miltona (near) 2.11 0 2.11 Township MiltonaTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0065 County Road County Local Douglas Miltona (near) 6.17 0 6.17 TownshipMiltona, SpruceHill, Carlos, BelleRiver Townships
Serves local purpose
4 0066 County Road County Local Douglas Miltona (near) 4.27 0 4.27 Township Spruce HillTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0068 County Road County Local Douglas Miltona (near) 2.11 0 2.11 Township Spruce HillTownship
Serves local purpose
4 0102 County Road County Local Douglas Miltona (near) 1.1 0 1.1 Township MiltonaTownship
Serves local purpose
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 6 1
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0078 County Road County Local Douglas Nelson 3.03 0 3.03 TownshipAlexandria,Osakis, Hudson,OrangeTownships
Serves local purpose
4 0074 County Road County Local Douglas Nelson (near) 4.41 0 4.41 TownshipBelle River,OsakisTownships
Serves local purpose
4 0163CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Osakis 0.14 0 0.14 City Osakis System spacing
4 0164CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Douglas Osakis 0.38 0 0.38 City Osakis Serves local purpose
6 2 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
2a. Kandiyohi County Map
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 6 3
2b. Kandiyohi County Register
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
8 0057CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Atwater 0.23 0 0.23 City Atwater Serves local purpose
8 0057CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Atwater 0.13 0.3 0.43 City Atwater Serves local purpose
8 0057CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Atwater 0.12 0.5 0.62 City Atwater Serves local purpose
8 0139 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Atwater (near) 0.5 0 0.50 Township HarrisonTowship
Road system continuitypreferences
8 0067 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Belgrade (near) 2.755 0 2.76 Township Colfax, CrowLake Serves local purpose
8 0051CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Blomkest 0.07 0 0.07 City BlomkestServes local purposeRoad system continuitypreferences
8 0122 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Blomkest 3.02 0 3.02 Township Roseland Serves local purpose
8 0070 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Blomkest (near) 1 0 1.00 Township Roseland,Winfield Serves local purpose
8 0078 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Blomkest (near) 3 0 3.00 Township Roseland, LakeLillian System spacing
8 0082 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Blomkest (near) 2.01 0 2.01 Township Roseland Serves local purpose
8 0103 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Hawick (near) 3.135 0 3.14 Township Irving Serves local purposeSystem spacing
8 0105 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Hawick (near) 1 0 1.00 Township Roseville Relative traffic volume
8 0143 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Hawick (near) 3.929 0 3.93 Township Roseville, Irving Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0056CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Kandiyohi 0.21 0 0.21 City Kandiyohi Serves local purpose
6 4 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
8 0133 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Kandiyohi (near) 1.85 0 1.85 TownshipKandiyohi, LakeElizabeth +others
Road system continuitypreferences
8 0134 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Kandiyohi (near),Atwater (near) 13.523 0 13.52 Township
Kandiyohi, LakeElizabeth +others
Road system continuitypreferences
8 0052CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian 0.07 0 0.07 City Lake LillianServes local purposeRoad system continuitypreferences
8 0074 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 3.1 0 3.10 Township East Lake Lillian Serves local purpose
8 0077 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 10.902 0 10.90 Township Multipletownships Relative traffic volume
8 0083 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 1.85 0 1.85 Township East Lake Lillian,Lake Elizabeth Serves local purpose
8 0129 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 2.03 0 2.03 Township Lake Lillian Serves local purpose
8 0132 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 2.17 0 2.17 Township Fahlun Location
8 0136 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Lake Lillian (near) 4.986 0 4.99 Township East Lake Lillian,Lake Elizabeth Serves local purpose
8 0059CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi New London 0.14 0 0.14 City New London Serves local purpose
8 0038CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 2.08 0 2.08 Township Lake Andrew System spacing
8 0107 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 2.03 0 2.03 Township Colfax System spacing
8 0120 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 2 0 2.00 Township Lake Andrew Already turned back
Serves local purpose
8 0126 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 1 0 1.00 Township Burbank Relative traffic volume
System spacing
8 0128 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 3.86 0 3.86 Township Burbank Relative traffic volume
System spacing
8 0130 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 2.28 0 2.28 Township Irving Relative traffic volume
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 6 5
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
8 0135 County Road County Local Kandiyohi New London(near) 4.41 0 4.41 Township Roseville System spacing
8 0089 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Pennock (near) 0.81 0 0.81 Township St Johns, Mamre Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0094 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Pennock (near) 0.97 0 0.97 Township Mamre Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0075 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Prinsburg (near) 5.96 0 5.96 Township Holland,Roseland Serves local purpose
8 0080 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Prinsburg (near) 1 0 1.00 Township Holland,Roseland
Relative traffic volumeServes local purpose
8 0080 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Prinsburg (near),Blomkest (near) 2.01 1.03 3.04 Township Holland,
RoselandRelative traffic volumeServes local purpose
8 0080 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Prinsburg (near),Blomkest (near) 7.909 3.08 10.99 Township Holland,
Roseland Relative traffic volume
8 0116 County Road County Local KandiyohiPrinsburg (near),Willmar (near),Pennock (near)
21.943 0 21.94 Township Holland,Edwards, Mamre Relative traffic volume
8 0111 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Raymond 1.051 0 1.05 City,Township
Raymond,Edwards Serves local purpose
8 0068 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Regal (near),Hawick (near) 3.988 0 3.99 Township Roseville System spacing
8 0142 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Regal (near),Hawick (near) 1.31 0 1.31 Township Roseville Relative traffic volume
System spacing8 0079 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Roseland 0.41 0 0.41 Township Roseland System spacing
8 0144 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Spicer 1.431 0 1.43 Township Spicer Road system continuitypreferences
8 0095 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Spicer (near) 1.51 0 1.51 Township Greenlake Serves local purpose
8 0138 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Spicer (near) 2.27 0 2.27 Township Irving, Harrison Serves local purpose
8 0140 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Spicer (near) 3.95 0 3.95 Township Harrison Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0112 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Sunburg 2.295 0 2.30 Township Norway Lake Serves local purpose
8 0101 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Sunburg (near) 1.01 0 1.01 Township Arctander Relative traffic volume
6 6 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
8 0113 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Sunburg (near) 7.305 0 7.31 TownshipArctander,Norway Lake (~2miles Northsegment)
Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0115 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Sunburg (near) 3.449 0 3.45 Township Norway Lake Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0044 TownshipRoad Township Minor
Collector Kandiyohi Willmar 1.02 0 1.02 County Kandiyohi Relative traffic volume
8 0170 TownshipRoad Township Minor
Collector Kandiyohi Willmar 0.637 3.99 4.627 County Kandiyohi Relative traffic volume
8 0065 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 3.87 3 6.87 Township St Johns, Mamre Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0084 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 2.5 0 2.50 Township Whitefield,Fahlun
Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0085 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 4.932 0 4.93 Township Whitefield Relative traffic volume
8 0087 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 2 0 2.00 Township St Johns Relative traffic volume
8 0093 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 1.796 0 1.80 Township Green lake,Dovre Serves local purpose
8 0123 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 1.968 0 1.97 Township Lakefield Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0123 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 1.477 2.44 3.92 Township Lakefield Relative traffic volumeSystem spacing
8 0127 County Road County Local Kandiyohi Willmar (near) 6.665 0 6.67 Township Green lake Relative traffic volume
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 6 7
3a. Otter Tail County Map
6 8 M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t
3b. Otter Tail County Register
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0065CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Henning 0.84 10.65 11.49 City Henning Location
4 0067CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Henning 1.333 0 1.333 City Henning Location
4 0090CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Battle Lake 0.29 0 0.29 City Battle Lake Location
4 0091CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Dent 0.07 0 0.07 City Dent Location
4 0094CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail New York Mills 0.07 0 0.07 City New York Mills Location
4 0095CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Parkers Prairie 0.14 0 0.14 City Parkers Prairie Location
4 0096CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Pelican Rapids 0.24 0 0.24 City Pelican Rapids Location
4 0098CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Perham 0.21 0 0.21 City Perham Location
4 0099CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Richville 0.09 0 0.09 City Richville Location
4 0100CountyState-AidHighway
County Local Otter Tail Pelican Rapids 0.29 0 0.29 City Pelican Rapids Location
4 0140 County Road County Local Otter Tail Deer Creek (near) 4.11 0 4.11 Township Deer Creek,Inman Relative traffic volume
4 0134 County Road County Local Otter Tail Henning (near) 3.53 0 3.53 Township Henning, Folden,Inman, Elmo Location
M i n n e s o t a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R e a l i g n m e n t P r o j e c t R e p o r t 6 9
Dist. Route # RouteSystem Owner Functional
Class County City/Closest terminus Miles GIS Beg.
Pt.GIS EndPt.
ProposedJurisdiction
JurisdictionStakeholder Misalignment Reasons
4 0139 County Road County Local Otter Tail Parkers Prairie(near) 0.78 0 0.78 Township Parkers Prairie Relative traffic volume
4 0148 County Road County Local Otter TailPerham (near),New York Mills(near)
1.85 0 1.85 Township Butler Location
4 0130 County Road County Local Otter Tail Vergas (near) 1.63 0 1.63 Township Candor Location
4 0104MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Otter Tail Fergus Falls 1.53 1.575 3.105 County Otter Tail Relative traffic volume
Location
4 0125MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Otter Tail Fergus Falls 1.918 0 1.918 County Otter Tail Relative traffic volume
Location
4 0137MunicipalState-AidStreet
City MinorArterial Otter Tail Fergus Falls 1.06 0 1.06 County Otter Tail Relative traffic volume
Location
4 1012 TownshipRoad Township Minor
Collector Otter TailUnderwood(near), BattleLake (near)
2.56 0 2.56 County Otter Tail Relative traffic volumeLocation
top related